Consuming Glory

A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality against Open Theism

Murphy

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2006
• eBook ISBN: 9781498276306
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

In the late 1990s, "Open Theism" took the theological world by storm. Advocated by several prominent theologians, among them Clark H. Pinnock, the view argues that human beings cannot have a genuine relationship with God if God possesses what classical theology has affirmed to be exhaustive foreknowledge of future events. Such foreknowledge, open theists claim, would make human freedom (and salvation itself) meaningless and divine power akin to little more than meaningless, cosmic puppeteering. While several works have taken the important step of addressing open theisms scriptural deficiencies in its denial of Gods foreknowledge, none have dealt with the vital issue of divine-human relationality and how it can be understood in a classical, orthodox framework that maintains such foreknowledge. Consuming Glory remedies that lack by first providing a fresh critique of open theism using Clark Pinnock's version of it as representative, but then offering a reconstruction of divine-human relationality centered on the Biblical principle of Christus in nobis (Christ in us). Christus in nobis is coupled with an outworking of meticulous divine providence that serves Gods own self-glorifying orientation. It reverses the relational ordering advocated in open theism by grounding human love of God theologically rather than anthropologically. Love of God and divine-human relationality is established precisely because it is Gods own self-love that is providentially given to us and thus reciprocated as believers are brought into adoptive communion with the Triune Godhead. Drawing on diverse resources throughout the corpus of historical theology, Murphy concludes that divine-human relationality can be summarized as God delighting in himself, in us.

1

Introduction

The events of Friday evening, November 21, 2002, will undoubtedly remain indelibly etched in the minds of hundreds of North American Evangelical scholars for decades to come. The fifty-fourth annual meeting of the Evangelical Theology Society (ETS) was underway in Toronto, Canada when a special plenary session was convened to address a twin set of “charges” laid against two long-standing members of the society. One of the members is widely renowned as one of North America’s most preeminent Evangelical thinkers—Canadian theologian, Dr. Clark Harold Pinnock.1

Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society is considered by most North American Evangelicals to be the primary forum in which they “foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.”2 Membership in the Society is considered vital by many Evangelical scholars and each year hundreds of them attend the ETS conference which has tended to prove itself a bellwether of future theological trajectories for Evangelical Christianity.

Bringing charges against Pinnock was no small matter. He has been recognized by the ETS for his theological work since the 1960’s when he published two influential books defending the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible—one of the central beliefs binding the Evangelical world. Since then, he has been a prolific author, writing numerous articles, scholarly essays, and well over a dozen books covering such diverse topics as apologetics, hermeneutics, soteriology, pneumatology, and the doctrine of God. He has come to be known for his perspicuous, even-shocking pedagogical style combined with a willingness to push the theological envelope, ever testing the boundaries of the conventional delimitations of “orthodoxy.” He has been both extolled and reviled by leaders in the Evangelical world—some calling him one of their finest, most progressive and insightful apologists; others calling him a dangerous rebel and heretic.3 One prominent Evangelical refers to him as, “perhaps the most significant Evangelical theologian of the last half of the twentieth century.”4 Another says of him,

No twentieth-century Evangelical thinker has been more controversial than Clark Pinnock. He has been lauded as an inspiring theological pilgrim by his admirers and condemned as a dangerous renegade by his foes. Yet no story of Evangelical theology in the twentieth century is complete without the inclusion of his fascinating intellectual journey . . .5

The charges, which meant the possible dismissal of Pinnock from the ETS, were brought forth by Swiss Reformed theologian, Dr. Roger Nicole—a charter member and past president of the Society (1956). Nicole’s charges laid an axe at the root of what it means to be a member of the ETS, namely, an unwavering commitment to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.6 Indeed, the doctrinal requirements for membership in the ETS are simple. Members of the society (in addition to meeting certain academic requirements such as holding an advanced degree) must affirm the following two-part statement: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”7

The essence of Nicole’s charges were equally straightforward: Pinnock, in his advocacy of “open theism,” has “violated the inerrancy clause” of the ETS doctrinal statement.8 Open theism, said Nicole, implicitly denies biblical inerrancy by attributing false statements to God, that is, episodes of Divine “ignorance” in which God thought (or hoped for) one thing concerning the future, when quite the opposite came to pass. At the start of the session, Nicole lamented saying, “I present this motion with a heavy heart”9 and then delineated the charges in a statement presented to the Society.

Following the Constitution and Bylaws of the ETS, the session was convened to address the charges, to open up a discussion among the members of the Society, and to take a vote that would decide whether the matter should be referred to the Executive Committee for further review.10 Such a review meant one year of rigorous examination of the teachings and writings of the accused, an opportunity for them to defend themselves, face their accuser, and for the Executive Committee to formulate a recommendation and present it to a second plenary session of the Society at the next year’s annual meeting. The 2002 session was packed, with some seven hundred members and non-voting participants present.

Calling the atmosphere in Toronto polemical would be putting it mildly. During the preliminary period of open discussion, participants took turns speaking into a microphone sharing their perspectives. One ETS member described the situation as “pernicious”11 saying the Society was “choking debate, substituting a judicial attack mechanism when [it] can’t persuade the other[s] to change [their] mind.”12 Another well known member described it as “dangerous” because “it sends a message to our young scholars saying ‘do not make a mistake.’”13 Pinnock himself, a year earlier, had remarked that those who opposed him in the ETS were like “Evangelical mullahs” issuing a “fatwa” against him.14 Professor John Sanders, the second accused member, offered similar remarks referring to the proceedings as an “Evangelical Taliban,” attempting to foist its own idea of doctrinal orthodoxy on the rest of the Society.15

Yet those on the opposite side of the issue were equally as vehement and passionate. Noted apologist and past ETS president, Norman Geisler, stated that these were “important charges” and that “all the living founders [of the ETS] opposed the view.”16 Bruce Ware, who authored a book critiquing open theism had earlier contended that, “By its denying of God’s foreknowledge of future free creaturely choices and actions, open theism is vulnerable to the charge of commending as God one whom the true God declares is false and worthless.”17 Finally, in a heated debate that ensued after an unidentified member of the Society contended that the proceedings were destroying academic freedom, Wayne Grudem, author of one of the newest and most widely used Evangelical systematic theologies, stated flatly that the question at hand was “not about squelching dialogue in the ETS, but is about whether the open theistic God is the God of the Bible.”18 Criticisms of one’s colleagues do not come in more stern a fashion than this.

After the open discussion, a vote was taken. The results were 171 to 131 in favor of referral to the Executive Committee to consider the charges.19 After the vote, Pinnock said, “It was a dramatic moment. I wasn’t surprised with the result. I’m concerned that it will divide the Society, whatever happens to me. I just hope that this process will work, and that next year it won’t pass. I’m hopeful.”20 Despite pressures from Nicole and numerous others to do so, Pinnock added, “I don’t intend to resign.”21

Purpose and Aim

The foregoing discussion should make evident the enormity of the current debate within Evangelicalism over openness theology along with the critical role played by Clark Pinnock. Pinnock argues both that exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events destroys human freedom, and that only his proposal for open theism (which denies such foreknowledge) can provide an adequate footing upon which Divine-human relationality can be grounded.22 The fundamental purpose and aim of this book is to examine and critique open theism, using Pinnock’s version of it as representative, and to then o...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Clark H. Pinnock: A Brief Biography
• Chapter 3: Pinnock’s Argument
• Chapter 4: Hellenization, Libertarianism, and the Metaphysics of Love
• Chapter 5: Classicalism, Compatibilism, and Trinitarian Glory
• Chapter 6: Toward a Reformed Reconstruction of Divine-Human Relationality
• Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusion
• Bibliography